Thread: What really happened on 9/11

MORE conspiracy theories? Ugh...

No questions but it's nice to see you are aware of it. Spread the word like there is no tommorow. By any means.

Remember the media reported building 7 down before it actually collapsed. you can see it standing in the background when they said it has collapsed. Post footage of that too.

Interesting.......

I never caught that bulge under the plane before.

What do you say to the people who have friends and family members that were on the flights that supposedly never existed? I know some of them personally. Should I tell them that their family members weren't real?

I think there are much more plausible possibilities. If I were operating under the assumption that our government definitely had some hand in these events, the most likely explanation to me would be that they had foreknowledge and let it happen. I think the fact that dozens of training exercises happened to have been scheduled for the same day, many of which involved planes crashing into buildings so that the people involved could not distinguish between reality and the drills is enough evidence.

I don't understand- the planes that hit the WTC were intended to by the US government? Not too farfetched for me..

I didn't know you were into prison planet's Alex Jones material seismosaur.

Great evidence...[/sarc] How about something more concrete than drawing huge conclusions from grainy footage next time?

As for the pentagon footage, even at 230mph the plane's going at over 100m/s. If the frame rate on the camera is low then not getting a good shotn of the plane is perfectly plausible. (besides which, why do you believe the data in the black box if you think missiles hit)

I totally agree with the Pentagon footage - however, why on earth would the American Government, if they knew they were going to be killing thousands, be bothered to save a couple of measly civilian flights. Surely they could just allow terrorists onto the planes, possibly load the planes with high explosives too, and let the terrorists do the work.

Also, the 'bulge' on the underside of the aircraft is very possibly it's landing gear bays.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

MORE conspiracy theories? Ugh...

Not really a conspiracy theory... Just telling you what I see.

Have you seen the Fireman's Video? They get called to some supposed gas leak, in a vent that just happens to have a perfect view of the south tower, and then, you can see, when they are done they just... Stand around. Then, when they hear a motherfucking Boeing 767 rocketing over Manhattan, one fireman just casually looks up, and the camera man immediately afterwards points directly at the South tower.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What do you say to the people who have friends and family members that were on the flights that supposedly never existed? I know some of them personally. Should I tell them that their family members weren't real?

I think there are much more plausible possibilities. If I were operating under the assumption that our government definitely had some hand in these events, the most likely explanation to me would be that they had foreknowledge and let it happen. I think the fact that dozens of training exercises happened to have been scheduled for the same day, many of which involved planes crashing into buildings so that the people involved could not distinguish between reality and the drills is enough evidence.

I didn't say they weren't real... It's just a possibility to me as I have never met anyone or known anyone who was connected to anyone who was on the WTC planes or Flight 93.

I mean, what happened to the pentagon? A plane full of people hits, and nothing gets said about it except several dozen photos of a tiny impact hole, with no wreckage to be found.

Originally Posted by Sybot

Great evidence...[/sarc] How about something more concrete than drawing huge conclusions from grainy footage next time?

As for the pentagon footage, even at 230mph the plane's going at over 100m/s. If the frame rate on the camera is low then not getting a good shotn of the plane is perfectly plausible. (besides which, why do you believe the data in the black box if you think missiles hit)

I don't see how I am drawing "huge conclusions" by pointing some basic things out?

And you aren't looking at it right. The first frame is the plane entering the Pentagon, so we should see SOME of it.

And I do think missiles hit it, because of the impact holes:



How does a single Boeging 767 manage to completely destroy one of the largest buildings in New York, yet a Boeing 757 (Which is near the same specifications as a 767) do only minor damage to a considerably smaller building?

It makes NO sense.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

I totally agree with the Pentagon footage - however, why on earth would the American Government, if they knew they were going to be killing thousands, be bothered to save a couple of measly civilian flights. Surely they could just allow terrorists onto the planes, possibly load the planes with high explosives too, and let the terrorists do the work.

Also, the 'bulge' on the underside of the aircraft is very possibly it's landing gear bays.

That's entirely possible. But I'm only working with what I know.

Which is all the photos and videos I've seen, plus eyewitness accounts (Which aren't usually very relibable, but they still have to be taken into account)

As for the buldge... Well, If you look at a picture of a Boeing 767...



... You'll see the landing gear doors are too far inward and aren't sphereical.

So what does that make the buldge?

I don't see how I am drawing "huge conclusions" by pointing some basic things out?

You post that ridiculous conspiracy theory at the beginning of the OP, then offer up those pictures as 'evidence'. I'd call that drawing a huge conclusion.

And you aren't looking at it right. The first frame is the plane entering the Pentagon, so we should see SOME of it.

In the first frame I see what looks like a cockpit on the right side of the picture. On the second frame I see what looks like the tail of a plane, with the front obscured by the explosion.

And I do think missiles hit it, because of the impact holes:

Those look like they could have been made by the fuselage and two engines. And as other evidence (ie witness statements, physical evidence) points to planes rather than missiles...

How does a single Boeging 767 manage to completely destroy one of the largest buildings in New York, yet a Boeing 757 (Which is near the same specifications as a 767) do only minor damage to a considerably smaller building?

Maybe because the buildings are completely different in design? It's a bit useless to compare skyscrapers with a much lower, flatter building.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

That's entirely possible. But I'm only working with what I know.

Which is all the photos and videos I've seen, plus eyewitness accounts (Which aren't usually very relibable, but they still have to be taken into account)

As for the buldge... Well, If you look at a picture of a Boeing 767...



... You'll see the landing gear doors are too far inward and aren't sphereical.

OK, fair enough. I just think there is more conclusive and important evidence to be investigated than the bulges.

Still, it's nice to see you're going about this in an intelligent way, unlike a lot of people.

I really don't think this is what happened, but the government definetly had prior knowledge, and the CIA was involved.

If your going to talk about 9-11, you shouldn't focus on the planes and the buildings, this usually just makes people mad and then they won't even listen to what you have to say. The best thing to talk about is government involvement/knowledge of the event. Theres plenty of evidence that what the 9-11 commission says happened is false/leaves a lot of shit out.

Why the fuck would the hang a few extra cubic meters of explosives on the planes that hit the WTC? The planes were empty, according to you, so they could have filled that shit up to the max, no need to put some more explosives on them. Especially since they 'show so clearly' on gritty camera images.

Why would you complicate things. There are other more certain things which don't require grainy images to see and offer evidence for the fact that it was an inside job.

you know the funny part about most of these conspiricy photos? The exact opposite could be done what they say they government did withthe photos. In other words, the theorists can photoshop the pics just as well as the government could photoshop things out of it. I think the segment of what the pentagon footage "should have" looked like is good proof that this could happen.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Why the fuck would the hang a few extra cubic meters of explosives on the planes that hit the WTC? The planes were empty, according to you, so they could have filled that shit up to the max, no need to put some more explosives on them. Especially since they 'show so clearly' on gritty camera images.

- If there WERE passngers onboard

Then there was no room

- If there weren't

How do you know the planes were empty?

I'm just telling you what I see. The pentagon is pretty much a giveaway, though... The official story is bullshit.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

The official story is bullshit.

At least most people can agree on that.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

- If there WERE passngers onboard

Then there was no room

- If there weren't

How do you know the planes were empty?

I'm just telling you what I see. The pentagon is pretty much a giveaway, though... The official story is bullshit.

What the hell are you saying? You said in your opening post that the planes were remote controlled. I am guessing that means empty. Even then, you still ignored my point that there is no reason to hang a weird bulky thing below a 747, no matter what you are going to use it for, be it as a pimp-mobile or as a tool for a diabolical plan.

In addition to what Neruo has said, how could the Pentagon have been hit with missiles? Honestly, think about it.

It's like someone committing a murder in the middle of a busy street in broad daylight and no one seeing it, only it's on a much larger scale, instead of someone stabbing or shooting someone in the street, it's a FRIGGING GIANT PLANE/MISSILE CRASHING INTO ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT BUILDINGS IN AMERICA. Wouldn't this official story have been completely disproved then? Also, I didn't bother reading most of the OP, as I've already seen all the same shit several years ago, as well as having seen pages worth of information disputing the facts that the conspiracy theorists come up with, so I'm not going to bother going through this all again.

Sorry, I just felt like I should stress that point.

Originally Posted by Neruo

What the hell are you saying? You said in your opening post that the planes were remote controlled. I am guessing that means empty. Even then, you still ignored my point that there is no reason to hang a weird bulky thing below a 747, no matter what you are going to use it for, be it as a pimp-mobile or as a tool for a diabolical plan.

I didn't say what I said was infallible fact. Just what I thought happened.

Originally Posted by Reality_is_a_Dream

So what does that make the buldge?

No idea.

Most likely object? Fuel tank. Explosive.

Originally Posted by Sybot

You post that ridiculous conspiracy theory at the beginning of the OP, then offer up those pictures as 'evidence'. I'd call that drawing a huge conclusion.



In the first frame I see what looks like a cockpit on the right side of the picture. On the second frame I see what looks like the tail of a plane, with the front obscured by the explosion.



Those look like they could have been made by the fuselage and two engines. And as other evidence (ie witness statements, physical evidence) points to planes rather than missiles...



Maybe because the buildings are completely different in design? It's a bit useless to compare skyscrapers with a much lower, flatter building.

The supposed "engine turbine" was found INSIDE the building. Did you see a Pratt and Whitney out here:



And you're exactly right about strutural differences: Skyscapers are BUILT to withstand jet impacts. A flatter building like the pentagon getting hit head-one by a 757 would show MUCH more damage. The main hole is only large enough to fit the front of the fuselage in.

And face it, eyewitness accounts are crap. Everyday people think they see Alien Space Craft^TM.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

I didn't say what I said was infallible fact. Just what I thought happened.

I think that what you saw on the griddy picture was actually my cock, that transcends oceans by it's huge-ness.

But that's just a theory!!111 111221

At least the goffernment sux, lol! AM I RITE?!!!11!1111